←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
themgt ◴[] No.45026515[source]
I’ll be honest: there is a very good chance this won’t work .... At the same time, the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for the next five, ten, or even fifteen years, the seeds of that failure will eventually sprout, just like those 2007 seeds sprouted for Intel over the last couple of years. The only difference is that the repercussions of this failure will be catastrophic not for the U.S.’s leading semiconductor company, but for the U.S. itself.

Very well argued. It's such a stunning dereliction the US let things get to this point. We were doing the "pivot to Asia" over a decade ago but no one thought to find TSMC on a map and ask whether Intel was driving itself into the dirt? "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost" but in this case the nail is like your entire metallurgical industry outsourced to the territory you plan on fighting over.

replies(19): >>45026609 #>>45026778 #>>45026847 #>>45027040 #>>45027203 #>>45027671 #>>45028085 #>>45028186 #>>45029665 #>>45029679 #>>45030185 #>>45031538 #>>45032843 #>>45034153 #>>45034357 #>>45034925 #>>45035444 #>>45035539 #>>45037189 #
Neywiny ◴[] No.45026609[source]
This and everything else. We outsourced manufacturing of almost everything then are surprised when the people doing it for decades are better than we were.
replies(1): >>45027501 #
marbro ◴[] No.45027501[source]
We outsourced manufacturing because it's not very profitable. The Mag 7 make 50x as much money as TSMC. Apple and Microsoft are the most profitable businesses in history.
replies(4): >>45027908 #>>45027955 #>>45028229 #>>45028745 #
jandrese ◴[] No.45027955[source]
The problem is when importance is not reflected in the quarterly profit margin.
replies(2): >>45030076 #>>45030649 #
treis ◴[] No.45030649[source]
Chips are one of those things where being the best is simultaneously very important and not at all important. Making a 10% better chip gets you the entire market. But it makes practically no difference if your cellphone or laptop or server or whatever has a 10% worse chip.
replies(1): >>45033199 #
1. p1necone ◴[] No.45033199[source]
> Making a 10% better chip gets you the entire market

Gets you the entire datacenter market maybe. End user (PCs, cellphones etc) stuff is much more concerned about perf/$ (up front cost) than perf/watt (long term cost), and the embedded market (electronics, appliances etc) mostly care about 'good enough' as cheaply as possible - performance isn't a concern at all for many use cases.

And the corporate market mostly cares about (perceived) reliability/liability concerns over everything else - see how hard it's been for AMD cpus to penetrate despite being measurably better in every category compared to Intel at various points in time.